8-� > apt-build (me l'hanno segnalato gia' Paolo e Franco: grazie) 8-� >
Forse non � buona norma per questa lista fare mail lunghe, ma era gi� apparso questo intervento: From: Alberto Marmodoro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Debian Italian Mailing List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Ricompilazione XFree86 4.2 (was Upgrade) On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 04:59:05PM +0200, Fabio Sirna wrote: > Non ho mai ricompilato xfree...� tanto difficile? Mi intrometto per proporre apt-build, l' ho provato proprio con xfree4.2pre1v3 in accoppiata con gcc-2.95 -march=i686 -mcpu=i686 -O3 e devo dire che ne sono stato proprio soddisfatto, scratch space richiesto a parte: ha ricompilato tutto senza problemi (fortemente consigliato ccache, visto la doppia ricompilazione in versione statica + debug e normale), e su un p2 a 366MHz con neomagic 256AV l' incremento medio su tutti i test di x11perf e` del 2%. Forse provero` anche il gcc-3.2, la prossima notte ;D -- Alberto Marmodoro Mentre su debian-user: From: KennyD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: APT overrules self-compiled packages Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 05:23:06 +0200 User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i I tried to (re-)compile some debian packages on my machine using apt-get source and dpkg-buildpackage - like I did for years, when I was running potato - just to have optimized code for my AMD K7. But unlike potato's apt, woody's apt reinstalls every selfcompiled package using sources.list everytime I run apt-get upgrade, although it is the same version. Like this: apt-get source xfree86 cd xfree86-4.1.0 dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -us -uc dpkg -i ../xlibs_4.1.0-16_i386.deb # and some more... apt-get upgrade [..] The following packages will be upgraded xlibs [..] apt-get installs a new xlibs_4.1.0-16_i386.deb package from a remote mirror or my local cache (I tried cleaning my cache, too!). Notice: it's the same version I installed before with dpkg! Has Anyone an idea what I could have missed, when I searched for an explicit mention about that behaviour in the documentation? Is that apt's new policy? I think, it has nothing to do with priorities in /etc/apt/preferences, I nearly tried everything. It's just as if APT regards official packages as newer as a matter of principle. I just found one solution (in theory!): making a local package site including a Release.gz file and giving them a higher priority through /etc/apt/preferences. But I don't want this. <<---thread--->> From: Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: APT overrules self-compiled packages Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:23:51 -0400 User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 01:00:55PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-12 14:16:30 -0400]: > > The canonical way to prevent Debian packages from clobbering > > your custom-compiled packages a version number of custom-21.1-1. No > > normal Debian package will ever have a higher number, even when using > > epochs. > > That sentence did not parse for me. But it interested me. > Could you clarify? OK. Let's say I have emacs21, which is at version "21.2-1". If I compile a new version, with some different compilation options, I'm going to version it "custom-21.2-1". Since "c" is larger than an number, this will always be higher. If you want to make sure that epochs don't clobber your versions, you can version it "9:custom-21.2-1" which makes it unlikely that the Debian official package will ever have a higher epoch than yours. Simon <<---thread--->> So, let me precise my actual problem: I just want the current version recompiled. If there is (really) a newer package out there (i.e. with bug- or security fixes) I want that newer package to be installed. This happens not very often, since I prefer to run the stable release all the time. I'm not making any important changes to the source code. I just want it to be compiled for my machine using a gcc-wrapper to optimize the code. I am highly interested in bug or security fixes. If renaming the package version is really necessary, I suppose changing the number 21.2-1 to 21.2-1.i686 solves the problem. But the foolish person, which is me, thought, it won't be really necessary and 'apt-get -b source' would perform well. Every documentation about that tells me so. No one ever told me to use debchange or to edit debian/changelog. ;) Probably you all are right and I've overseen this important part of APT's policy (official overrules selfcompiled). Thanks for help, _ Oh. Then you definitely want something like 21.2-1.0.i686. That way, if someone does an NMU on the package, then you will get 21.2-1.1 instead. (I think.) Unfortunately, apt-get --build source doesn't have features that allow you to do that. What you _can_ do is wait for apt-src/apt-build which I hear will have copious amounts of nifty tweaking features. Simon * Kenny Doberenz <<---thread--->> <<Unix IS user friendly... It's just selective about who its friends are!>> See "User's Guide": http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/users-guide/ See "Debian reference": http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ "Debian reference" Project at: http://qref.sf.net Please DO NOT send e-mail with any attachment in a "proprietary format", such as either .doc or .ppt, BECAUSE: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html (the Italian version is available on the following url: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.it.html) T H A N K S ;-P
